A Creative Destruction Approach To Replication: Implicit Work and Sex Morality Across Cultures

How can we maximize what is learned from a replication study? In the creative destruction approach to replication, the original hypothesis is compared not only to the null hypothesis, but also to predictions derived from multiple alternative theoretical accounts of the phenomenon. To this end, new populations and measures are included in the design in addition to the original ones, to help determine which theory best accounts for the results across multiple key outcomes and contexts. The present pre-registered empirical project compared the Implicit Puritanism account of intuitive work and sex morality to theories positing regional, religious, and social class differences; explicit rather than implicit cultural differences in values; self-expression vs. survival values as a key cultural fault line; the general moralization of work; and false positive effects. Contradicting Implicit Puritanism's core theoretical claim of a distinct American work morality, a number of targeted findings replicated across multiple comparison cultures, whereas several failed to replicate in all samples and were identified as likely false positives. No support emerged for theories predicting regional variability and specific individual-differences moderators (religious affiliation, religiosity, and education level). Overall, the results provide evidence that work is intuitively moralized across cultures. © 2020 The Author(s)Jan Wallanders och Tom Hedelius Stiftelse samt Tore Browaldhs Stiftelse; Institut Européen d'Administration des Affaires, INSEAD; Knut och Alice Wallenbergs Stiftelse; Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg Foundation, MMWEric Luis Uhlmann is grateful for an R&D grant from INSEAD in support of this research. Anna Dreber is grateful for generous financial support from the Jan Wallander and Tom Hedelius Foundation (Svenska Handelsbankens Forskningsstiftelser), the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation and the Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg Foundation (Anna Dreber is a Wallenberg Scholar), and Anna Dreber and Magnus Johannesson are grateful for a grant from the Swedish Foundation for Humanities and Social Sciences

Many Labs 5: Registered Replication of LoBue and DeLoache (2008)

Across three studies, LoBue and DeLoache (2008) provided evidence suggesting that both young children and adults exhibit enhanced visual detection of evolutionarily relevant threat stimuli (as compared with nonthreatening stimuli). A replication of their Experiment 3, conducted by Cramblet Alvarez and Pipitone (2015) as part of the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (RP:P), demonstrated trends similar to those of the original study, but the effect sizes were smaller and not statistically significant. There were, however, some methodological differences (e.g., screen size) and sampling differences (the age of recruited children) between the original study and the RP:P replication study. Additionally, LoBue and DeLoache expressed concern over the choice of stimuli used in the RP:P replication. We sought to explore the possible moderating effects of these factors by conducting two new replications—one using the protocol from the RP:P and the other using a revised protocol. We collected data at four sites, three in Serbia and one in the United States (total N = 553). Overall, participants were not significantly faster at detecting threatening stimuli. Thus, results were not supportive of the hypothesis that visual detection of evolutionarily relevant threat stimuli is enhanced in young children. The effect from the RP:P protocol (d = −0.10, 95% confidence interval = [−1.02, 0.82]) was similar to the effect from the revised protocol (d = −0.09, 95% confidence interval = [−0.33, 0.15]), and the results from both the RP:P and the revised protocols were more similar to those found by Cramblet Alvarez and Pipitone than to those found by LoBue and DeLoache

Many Labs 5: Registered Replication of Shnabel and Nadler (2008), Study 4

Shnabel and Nadler (2008) assessed a needs-based model of reconciliation suggesting that in conflicts, victims and perpetrators have different psychological needs that when satisfied increase the chances of reconciliation. For instance, Shnabel and Nadler found that after a conflict, perpetrators indicated that they had a need for social acceptance and were more likely to reconcile after their sense of social acceptance was restored, whereas victims indicated that they had a need for power and were more likely to reconcile after their sense of power was restored. Gilbert (2016), as a part of the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (RP:P), attempted to replicate these findings using different study materials but did not find support for the original effect. In an attempt to reconcile these discrepant findings, we conducted two new sets of replications—one using the RP:P protocol and another using modified materials meant to be more relatable to undergraduate participants. Teams from eight universities contributed to data collection (N = 2,738). We did find moderation by protocol; the focal interaction from the revised protocol, but not from the RP:P protocol, replicated the interaction in the original study. We discuss differences in, and possible explanations for, the patterns of results across protocols

Crowd-sourcing hypothesis tests: Making transparent how design choices shape research results

To what extent are research results influenced by subjective decisions that scientists make as they design studies? Fifteen research teams independently designed studies to answer five original research questions related to moral judgments, negotiations, and implicit cognition. Participants from two separate large samples (total N > 15,000) were then randomly assigned to complete one version of each study. Effect sizes varied dramatically across different sets of materials designed to test the same hypothesis: materials from different teams rendered statistically significant effects in opposite directions for four out of five hypotheses, with the narrowest range in estimates being d = -0.37 to +0.26. Meta-analysis and a Bayesian perspective on the results revealed overall support for two hypotheses, and a lack of support for three hypotheses. Overall, practically none of the variability in effect sizes was attributable to the skill of the research team in designing materials, while considerable variability was attributable to the hypothesis being tested. In a forecasting survey, predictions of other scientists were significantly correlated with study results, both across and within hypotheses. Crowd-sourced testing of research hypotheses helps reveal the true consistency of empirical support for a scientific claim

Sofosbuvir shows a protective effect against vertical transmission of Zika virus and the associated congenital syndrome in rhesus monkeys

The outbreaks of Zika virus (ZIKV) infection in Brazil, 2015–2016, were associated with severe congenital malformations. Our translational study aimed to test the efficacy of the antiviral agent sofosbuvir (SOF) against vertical transmission of ZIKV and the associated congenital syndrome (CZS), using a rhesus monkey model. Eight pregnant macaques were successfully infected during the organogenesis phase with a Brazilian ZIKV strain; five of them received SOF from two to fifteen days post-infection. Both groups of dams showed ZIKV-associated clinical signals, detectable ZIKV RNA in several specimens, specific anti-ZIKV IgM and IgG antibodies, and maternal neutralizing antibodies. However, malformations occurred only among non-treated dam offspring. Compared to non-treated animals, all SOF-treated dams had a shorter ZIKV viremia and four of five neonates had undetectable ZIKV RNA in blood and tissue samples. These results support further clinical evaluations aiming for the prevention of CZS